KaskadskyjKozak

Homophobia is bad, but your misogyny is cool?

You should head over there and join Murray Poop Chin in making of his historic documentary. Oh, yes, you'd need to leave your Mom's basement for that...

I'll say it again. Fix the AMT. If someone makes $1million in whatever combination of salary, capital gains, etc, just set a lower limit to what they must pay - whether that is an absolute value of 12%, 15%, or whatever.

I was hoping for a forfeit - sorry we don't have any players who can suit up and actually play!

W T F

here comes douchebag who'll soon be "whining" about having been insulted or so other bullshit. Pathetic moron. If you're having trouble affording the co-pay on your meds, I'd be more than happy to help you out.

Fix AMT, should be pretty simple.

spare me what you think you know, just stick to the facts like studies showing that non-discretionary items have outpaced wage growth. and I mean studies, not propaganda by the latest Koch think tank, mkay? You are aware of the fact that things like interest rates, money supply, inflation, etc have a connection with the prices of things like "non discretionary" spending, correct? There's a connection there that predates the existence of the Koch brothers, but I'll leave that aside for the moment. The major unstated premise of Warren's claim, and yours by proxy, is that spending on classes of goods and services that fall into the "non-discretionary" category is entirely non discretionary. That's quite a silly claim, and it's strange that you'd persist in defending it. If all people could eat were a homogeneous nutrient paste, the only clothing available was Kim-Jong Il style jumpsuits in a single size and color, and the only housing available were completely identical units in a Breshnev era housing block and all of them were priced and distributed on a strict per-capita basis by a central rationing authority - then the spending would be truly non-discretionary. I know for certain that you can choose to rent a smaller, older place instead of borrowing multiples of your income to buy a large home in an expensive neighborhood. Etc, etc, etc, *10^999999999999999. Boring. j_b is so full of shit, it oozes from his ears

That's j_b

Any study that claims that a 2nd-car is a necessary prerequisite to minimal living standards for the middle class reeks of bullshit.

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me. The problem is not the long term capital gain tax. We shouldn't be heavily taxed on income that is already taxed when it's put into investments, and Buffet doesn't disagree with this. The problem is that tax rate under Bush was extended to business dividends where it's became abusive. Most businesses in the US that generate significant income (S corps) the owners are given a reasonable wage and then as a "shareholder" are taxed on their distributions at 15%. So a $30 million a year business the owner can take a salary of $25k and then take a dividend, say $1 million, at 15%. Yes, it's being taxed beforehand at the corporate rate, but so is everything else. Canada has something similar, but the difference is the sky is not the limit, there is a cap on that 15%. And that is what the US needs to do. Small to medium sized business owners deserve the 15% tax break; they worked hard for it. Let them have their $250k at 15%. CEOs don't deserve a $40 million payout at 15% and that is where the abuse comes in. So therein lies the problem. How many people actually knew that. I know very intelligent people who don't understand the 15% dividend tax. They will argue until their blue in the face about taxation when not even understanding it. There aren't enough CEO's making 40 million to make a dent in our budget deficit if taxed at 20%, 30%, or whatever the proposed change is.

Repeating drivel ad-infinitum doesn't make it true even if blaming stupidity and lust for consumer items proves to be effective demagoguery. Despite my numerous attempts at getting you to do so, you still have to answer adequately EWarren's study of middle class spending showing that large increases in prices of non-discretionary items like health care, housing in good school districts, local regressive taxes, child care, 2nd car for 2nd wage earner , etc account for spending outpacing income (and we won't even discuss the 30+ year long race to the bottom wage that you keep cheering). Yeah, take that you regressive corporate shill goon! And don't forget, in addition to the 2 car minimum, the middle class also need multiple smart phones with unlimited data plans and minutes, a satellite dish, the NFL, MLB, and NBA packages, ....

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me. He wants you to kiss your mortgage deduction and child tax credit good bye.

See Barry is not so bad! STAY THE COURSE!!!

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back. 1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion? 2. What qualifies as rich? 3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden? Useful data: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm the basic question goes unanswered: if tax cuts lead to job creation, why did unemployment go in the crapper and stay there for 3 years despite no real change in taxes? i'm hardly an economic historian, but it seems like big tax cuts did go hand-in-hand with an orgy of real-estate speculation which did eventual resulted in the meltdown of '08 that still hasn't worked itself out today. Democrats are now arguing that the stimulus spending helped stop a *worse* recession than we got. You could make the same argument about the tax cuts.

Thank god the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig is back. 1. How did the tax breaks wreck the economy, in your opinion? 2. What qualifies as rich? 3. What percentage of the total tax burden should the rich bear relative to their income and the total tax burden? Useful data: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/graphics.cfm If the upper marginal rate were only 39.6% instead of 35% then the economy would be so much better!

You can take the DC. We descended it on 9/11 and it was a flagged trail with no difficulties. There were two crevasses with fixed ladders over them.

michael moore's new sensational expose of the porn industry? No, this movie: Fucko, details his 57 years of unwanted abstinence. No woman, even drunk, will screw him, despite his rather large wallet. And the working title "The 57 year Old Virgin", sounded too much like a continuation of a Steve Carell flick done previously. Are you talking about Michael Moore or TTK??

This is a stupid, fucking thread.

Your kind always wants to come up with a plan to forcibly "reorganize" backed by thugs running a one-party-show. Whatever stats you dredge up (which are flawed and arguable), only show trends that develop as a result of policies and behaviors in the aggregate, not by some brain-trust of pseudo-intellectual, wanna-be revolutionaries systematically and trying to impose their ideological social world-view on the rest of us.

Yeah, that's just what we want/need - another asshole to tell us how to (re)organize society. Hey Prole:

sounds like you still have the brain turned on and in work mode... it's time for some brewski's Sobo!

Speaking of drinks... hey, Sobo, what time is it??

Ivan, I was wondering the same thing... d objective hazards ;-)

a decade of decadence?